Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: christof139

Great report screen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I still need to get new bifocals though, and quick!! [X(][8|]

Chris [>:][>:][>:]

Yes, the lettering is kinda faint. Should be brighter.

ORIGINAL: Grey Hunter

One question I have is now that casualties are being tracked a lot more carfully (which I think is great btw) is there going to be a total casulaties screen? or a section on the graph that runs total casualties rather than casulties per turn? that way we could compare our losses to the real war. (although the numbers lots ot disease would have to be added seperatly I guess.)

Yes, there will be final statistics as well.

Ironclad, for now we have to do it this way. Once the patch is out and the dust has settled, we'll of course consider further changes. But right now, we're trying to avoid extra programming that would delay the patch.

Thanks Gil. I agree its much better to get the patch out asap and look other possibilities later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: christof139

Great report screen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I still need to get new bifocals though, and quick!!

Chris quote:


Yes, the lettering is kinda faint. Should be brighter.

Likea dis, or dis dat here??

Chris

A pitty you could not have the national flag icon of who won in the 'Victor' column, it would be much easier to see who won "at a glance".

It would also add some colour (Australian spelling) to a fairly dull screen.

Great to see this type of enhancement in a patch though, keep up the good work [:)]

'Colour', the British English spelling adapted back when, when the British English became 'Frenchified', but before that time it was spelt as 'color' in the proper Anglo-Saxon I do believe. Hence, USA spelling of English is more original and correct than the present British English version, and a Language Prof. from Britain explained this to me some years back. Interesting.
 
Cheers 'n Beers, Cheerios, Ciao, and Rip, Tip, Tally Ho!!! (the motto of a US Army Airboren supply and support type unit in my old Division believe it or not)
 

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition:

"The OE. word was híw, hue. Colour, corresponding to the late AFr., has been the normal spelling in Eng. from 14th c.; but color has been used occasionally, chiefly under L. influence, from 15th c., and is now the prevalent spelling in U.S."

OE. = Old English
AFr. = Anglo-French
Eng. = England
c. = century
L. = Latin

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition:

"The OE. word was híw, hue. Colour, corresponding to the late AFr., has been the normal spelling in Eng. from 14th c.; but color has been used occasionally, chiefly under L. influence, from 15th c., and is now the prevalent spelling in U.S."

OE. = Old English
AFr. = Anglo-French
Eng. = England
c. = century
L. = Latin

13th Century = Normans = Frenchified Northmen.

Try previous to that, in Anglo-Saxon/Germanic and Celtic England. Latin was introduced to England long before the 13th century. French came about with the dastardly Norman Conquest.

Prof. JRR Tolkien didn't like the Normans either, he was an Anglo-Saxaon stalwart, and decried the Conquest, along with many of his friends and aquaintances.

So, I guess the British English Prof. is correct in his analysis, as I mentioned.

Chris

I think I will go ride my palfrey now, another french word that was adapted in England i do believe, came in with the Frenchified Normans.
 
Chris
 

I still think that these stats screens need a little more COLOUR [:D]

I still think that these stats screens need a little more COLOUR

Ha ha ha!! Yup!! [:'(][8|][X(]

I knowe.

Chris Hogdson (means 'Strong Spear' more or less in very OE Anglo-Saxon, but is not actually my surname, but I likes it I does)[8|][>:][>:][>:][>:]

Prof. JRR Tolkien didn't like the Normans either, he was an Anglo-Saxaon stalwart, and decried the Conquest, along with many of his friends and aquaintances.

Are you saying that Tolkien didn't care for his friends? That's how it reads.

"Tolkien was an Anglo-Saxon stallwart. Like many of his friends, he too decried the conquest."

Try that. That word "decried" is on my top ten most hated words list. It's right below the word "iteration."

But anyhow, I didn't think that you meant Tolkien did not like his friends, so I tried to set the record straight.


Alan

Are you saying that Tolkien didn't care for his friends? That's how it reads.

"Tolkien was an Anglo-Saxon stallwart. Like many of his friends, he too decried the conquest."

Try that. That word "decried" is on my top ten most hated words list. It's right below the word "iteration."

But anyhow, I didn't think that you meant Tolkien did not like his friends, so I tried to set the record straight.


Alan

Oh, sorry, yes it can be interpreted as you say, but also in the way I meant, reiterating, that is that his friends also didn't like or decried the Norman Conquest.

I could have been perhaps a bit clearer in stating this as such: 'JRR Tolkien didn't like the Normans either, he was an Anglo-Saxaon stalwart, and decried the Conquest, *as did* many of his friends and aquaintances.'

Or, simply moved the phrase '...along with many of his friends and aquaintances.' to compose the sentence thusly: 'JRR Tolkien, along with many of his friends and aquaintances, didn't like the Normans, he was an Anglo-Saxaon stalwart, and decried the Conquest.'

See, it's all a matter of interpretation. [&o][&o][&o][X(]

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]

very nice battle history screen !
 
question = I'm getting the feeling that combat results are more times "tied" or "matched" compared to the past (more realistic combat casualty results). Is this the result of detailed combar - or quick combat or instant battles ?

ORIGINAL: spruce

very nice battle history screen !

question = I'm getting the feeling that combat results are more times "tied" or "matched" compared to the past (more realistic combat casualty results). Is this the result of detailed combar - or quick combat or instant battles ?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but can tell you that most (if not all) of those battles were QC. When I test the game I'm more interested in the strategic game, so I use QC. Hard Sarge has the testing abilities of ten men when it comes to detailed battle, so I only fight those when the whim strikes me.

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

ORIGINAL: spruce

very nice battle history screen !

question = I'm getting the feeling that combat results are more times "tied" or "matched" compared to the past (more realistic combat casualty results). Is this the result of detailed combar - or quick combat or instant battles ?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but can tell you that most (if not all) of those battles were QC. When I test the game I'm more interested in the strategic game, so I use QC. Hard Sarge has the testing abilities of ten men when it comes to detailed battle, so I only fight those when the whim strikes me.

so these are result from QC - very nice ! Seems better result compared to the past - did you tune this QC ? [:)]

There've definitely been tweaks to QC results, but I can't remember what those are. Eric would know, so if he's not too busy programming he might wander by this thread and illuminate us all (hint, hint).

Yes, QC has been tweaked several times to produce more realistic results and also to be closer to detailed combat in the results you can expect in terms of attack vs. defense.

With some exceptions it still follows the trend of being the victor means you suffer less casualities. During the ACW that wasn't the case so much as if you were the defender. Many times the attacker won, but suffered more casualities to push the defender from the field. I know pursuit can drastically change the total figures and if the defender if routed and pursued they should suffer. But I'd like to see more battles depending on terrain where the attacker (especially with bad leadership) suffers heavily to win even if they possess the larger force. Tied to that I'd like to see quality troops with great leaders win occasionally even if outnumbered 2-1 if the larger force has bad leaders. Bad leaders tended to feed divisions in piecemeal and threw away their numerical advantage. The QC engine seems to always fight max against max when it would be a nice addition to see something like a mismanagement modifer where the attacker may not always use all it's forces when it has a bad leader. They could just start in the routed box like when reinforcements are called in.

ORIGINAL: tiredoftryingnames

Bad leaders tended to feed divisions in piecemeal and threw away their numerical advantage. The QC engine seems to always fight max against max when it would be a nice addition to see something like a mismanagement modifer where the attacker may not always use all it's forces when it has a bad leader. They could just start in the routed box like when reinforcements are called in.

Yes, it would be good if one of the leaders' traits, maybe command, affected what percentage of a general's force was engaged.